PanF 50 @ 400 to 800 Stand developed in 1:100 Rodinal. Anyone tried?

[Xmas]

And if you ever speak to Simon Galley (or just about anyone else from Ilford), XP2 is often recommended if you plan on scanning the negatives.

As for pushing PanF, I for one am looking forward to information on development and the results. PanF is a fine grained film, but will Rodinal produce massive amounts of grain, or will it still be pleasant to look at..

Panf+ is just amazingly good in either
Microphen stock or Rodinal 1+100 stand at 50ISO.

I've only tried those two.

Rodinal stand is not that bad for even films like Foma400.
It does flatten Panf's contrast a bit.

I can recommend either of the above but I'd not try 64 ISO if you like printing.

 

[reakeener1970]

So, assuming Simon (from Ilford Photo) knows what he is talking about, looking at the film dev cookbook, the only developer that even has times listed for PanF+ shot at 400 is Xtol at working strength, 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3. So, if I were to abort this experiment, what Xtol dilution would the consensus be for me to use? More dilute or less dilute? Thanks!

 

[pentaxuser]

OP why not get a cassette of Pan F, expose quarter of it at 400 then a quarter at 800.. Open camera in the dark and cut the film and develop in Rodinal stand. Connect the rest of the film to the take-up spool and expose at 400 then remove from camera in dark, cut the film roughly into three and try stock ,1+1 and 1+2 development in Xtol.

You will then have possibly more information about Pan F at those speeds in both Rodinal stand and Xtol dilutions than anyone else here on APUG which has to be useful to the rest of us.

At worst you and the rest of us can refer anyone else who wishes to try such an experiment, especially at 800 with Rodinal stand, to your report.

I am an Xtol user myself but only at 1+1 and have never considered Pan F at 400 but your experiment might tell me a lot

I suspect you are wavering a bit on Pan F and Rodinal stand which is understandable and OK provided you can move on but if any nagging doubts remain then you need to get it out of your system by "just doing it" as Nike says

However it turns out I for one will not adopt an "I told you so" response.

Best of luck

pentaxuser

 

[NB23]

Pan-F in Ilfosol-3 (1:14) was a revelation to me.

If you insist on pushing to Iso 400-800, i would definitely AGITATE for the whole hour.
If you insist on the lousy stand method, then dilute Rodinal 1:25 and let it stand.

 

[Xmas]

PanF has been a beautiful, never forgiving, pain in the ass to use film. One has first to discover its true speed in a developer of own like, and then decide how far it can be pushed. In most developers it can be pushed to 80-100 or even to 125, but any further than that you are not going to like it.
In Xtol pushing it to EI 400 will give you awful blacks and weird grain as it will be something between grain build up and grain dissolution due to prolonged stay in the developer.
One can get something out of a gross overexposed PanF, but for sure you won't like it.
If there is only Rodinal available, try with stand development, more developer than 1:100 (say 1:75) and minimal agitation in under 18 degC. The negatives will be grainy, thin and flat but you will get the best possible out of it.

I had been concerned by reports similar to yours and by Harmans process in 3 months from exposure.
All I have done is expose at 50 ISO during high contrast days and waited for 12 months an error to finish off one cassette.
All the frames were excellent shadows to highlights the grain under a loupe seemed to be just as tight as Delta100 and there was no indication of loss of density from delayed exposure to process.
Though the rebate printing was faint (2005 or so expiry bulk).
My only problem is the 50 ISO as I only get a few days bright enough per year.

Microphen stock per Ilford data sheet and
Rodinal stand 60 minutes 20c 1:100
Patterson multi tank

So your report is manure.

I was told don't underexposure and over develope way before web lies appeared.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Thanks Michael for doing these tests. I have wisely decided to stay out of stand development discussions. Dealing with "standers" is a bit like dealing with the Inquisition. Nothing that one says deters them.

 

[Xmas]

Thanks Michael for doing these tests. I have wisely decided to stay out of stand development discussions. Dealing with "standers" is a bit like dealing with the Inquisition. Nothing that one says deters them.

Burn all heretics

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Anyone tried underexposing PanF by a 3-4 stops (400 or 800) and stand-developing in Rodinal 1:100 for an hour?
Kind of curious to try it out but just wanted to see if any others had and what they thought before spending the film/$$.
Thanks!
p.s., this would be on 35mm film. Don't mind grain in general but don't want EXTREME grain on such a small negative.

Good for you to decide to do it at your own.
I never succeeded with it @100 in HC-110, but once I nail it at @50, it is lovely film, not sterile as TMAX and Delta, not so much grainy either, but contrast.

If you feel itchy for tests, I recommend Polypan F 50. Dirt cheap film worth of experiments as you are after. I did and it was fun with F.. Polypan. I hit it even @1600, once and accidentally.

 

[reakeener1970]

For what it's worth, I had a thread going in which I did some controlled tests on Rodinal 1+100 stand development (using FP4+) to get an idea of what actually happens. These were tests on roll film in a tank. I had planned on additional tests using sheet film developed horizontally, but the thread went nutso real quick, as usual (rational discussions on stand development and/or Rodinal are impossible) so I never got to the sheet film tests.

The reference developer in these tests was XTOL.

I plotted some sensitometric curves and posted them in that thread, but since sensitometry is sometimes frowned upon , here are the high level observations without detail:

1) 30 minutes produced a curve almost identical to normal development in XTOL. This means essentially ISO speed or slightly higher.
2) 60 minutes produced an expected push result. Using a fixed density speed determination, one would say there was a "real" speed increase of 1/2 stop to 1 stop, however contrast was substantially higher than normal. The benefit a p-Aminophenol developer such as Rodinal provides under these circumstances is low fog (virtually the same as with normal development).
3) Uniformity was terrible, however depending on subject matter and exposure relationships in the negative, you may or may not find it to be a deal breaker. Given the popularity of this process with roll film, evidently some people either don't notice the poor uniformity, streaking etc., or don't care. Up to the individual user.

Some additional info on XTOL: Dilution will tend to affect image structure more than speed/contrast. Depending on the film (always an important variable) and agitation technique, relative to 1+0, a 1+3 dilution can produce a very small increase in emulsion speed for a given contrast (or very slightly lower contrast for a given emulsion speed). In any case, When developed normally, XTOL can generally be expected to give a little more speed than Rodinal. If we use D-76/ID-11 as a benchmark producing ISO speed, normal development in Rodinal will tend to produce slightly less speed than D-76, while XTOL will tend to produce slightly more speed than D-76.

Thanks for the info, Michael.

 

[pdeeh]

Dealing with "standers" is a bit like dealing with the Inquisition. Nothing that one says deters them.

Imagine if they joined forces with the Zoneista Tendency ... :devil:

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Imagine if they joined forces with the Zoneista Tendency ... :devil: